MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158284197 · doi:10.5539/ass.v8n1p156

Relationship between Parenting Style and Academic Achievement among Iranian Adolescents in Sirjan

2011· article· en· W2158284197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elham Dehyadegary, Siti Nor Yaacob, Rumaya Juhari, Mansor Abu Talib

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermissiveParenting stylesPsychologyStyle (visual arts)Academic achievementDevelopmental psychologyScale (ratio)Positive relationshipSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study was to determine the relationship between parenting styles and academic achievement among adolescents in Iran. The respondents were 382 high school adolescents (251 female and 131 male) in the age range of 15 to 18 years old from selected high schools in Iran. The instrument used to measure parenting style was the parenting style scale by Baumrind (1991). The result of the study indicated that authoritative parenting style has positive significant correlation with academic achievement, while permissive parenting style has negative correlation with academic achievement. The result of the study also showed that there is no significant relationship between authoritarian parenting style and academic achievement. The results of the present study implied that academic achievement among adolescents can be enhanced through positive parenting style. Thus, it is recommended that parents be equipped with knowledge and skills appropriate to the needs and development of their adolescents children.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207